Response to: Taqayya of Ibn Umar

Share

The following is a response to SlaveOfAhlubait’s article entitled: “Taqayya of Ibn Umar.” The article was published on the 9th of June, 2012, and can be found here.

SoA quotes then comments:

Ibn ‘Umar reported: The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said two rak’ahs at Mina, and Abu Bakr after him, and ‘Umar after Abu Bakr, and ‘Uthman at the beginning of his caliphate; then ‘Uthman observed four rak’ahs,and when Ibn ‘Umar prayed with the Imam, he said four rak’ahs, but when he observed prayer alone, he said two rak’ahs.

Similar narration is there in Musanif ibn abi sheebah Why was Ibn Umar offering two rakahs when alone? and four rakahs when with Uthman? When he knew that it was two rakahs????

The answer is as Ibn Umar said in an authentic narration in Sunan Abi Dawud at the end of this narration, which is that “disunity is bad.” Uthman was not a silly person to kill or hurt people who prayed a short prayer during travels. To suggest that taqiyyah prevented Ibn Omar from praying two prostrations is simply absurd and is free from evidence.

Al-Khattabi comments after sharing the view that it is permissible to pray a full prayer (in four prostrations) even though it is preferred to pray in two: Don’t you see that Ibn Omar prayed the full prayer then said that this was because disunity is bad?! If praying a complete prayer was not permissible then disunity would have been good and not bad. See Ma’alim Al-Sunan 2/181.

For more on the concept of taqiyya in the eyes of Shias, refer to Taqiyya: The Two-Faced Religion.

1 Comment

  1. Isn’t it what Khamenei say? “disunity is bad.”

    Taqiyah or “not wanting disunity” say it however you want, it doesnt change what it is, Shias on Taqiya say it is to prevent bloodshed and disunity, which is what you exactly pointed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*